Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
PANCHAYAT VARGA SHARMAJIVI SAMUDAIKSAHAKARI KHEDUT COOP.SOC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HARIBHAI MEVABHAI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/07/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (5)653
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. Though notice was served on the
respondents - the first and the fourth respondents,the 1st
respondent is not appearing either in person or through
counsel; equally, 4th respondent through counsel. We have
heard the counsel for the appellant as well as for the
State.
The undisputed facts are that the appellant -Society
consists of labourers and Scheduled Caste persons belonging
to the village Khardosan in Deesa Taluka of Banaskantha
District of Gujarat State. The appellant-society had
requested the Gram Panchayat to recommend to the District
Collector for assignment of 300 acres of gaucher land (waste
land) vested in the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of
cultivation and augmentation or economic empowerment of the
members of the appellant-Society. The Gram Panchayat had
unanimously resolved and requested the Collector to resume
the land and assign it to the appellant. The District
Collector in response thereto had resumed the land and
assigned the same to the appellant. Calling the order of the
District Collector in question a Review Petition was filed
before the Government by the first respondent. The
Government by order dated August 20, 1986 set aside the
order on the ground that District Collector did not issue
any notice to the villagers before its resumption. When the
writ petition came to be filed, while upholding that the
waste land as required to be resumed by the Collector for
public purpose of assignment to the rural labourers
belonging to backward classes and Scheduled Castes the High
Court directed the Collector to give notice to the villagers
and to consider their objections and to pass order afresh
thereafter. On appeals by the impugned order dated January
24, 1994 in Appeal No.33/94, the Division Bench confirmed
the same. Thus this appeal by special leave.
The question that arises for consideration is: whether
notice to the villagers is mandatory under Section 96(4) of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
the Gram Panchayat Act, 1961 (for short, the ’Act’)? Section
96 reads as under:
"96. Government may vest certain
lands,in Panchayats- (1) For the
purpose of this Act. The
Government may subject to such
conditions and restrictions as it
may think fit to impose, vest in a
panchayat open sites waste, vacant
or grazing land is or public.
roads, streets, bridges, ditches,
dikes and fences wells, river-beds
tanks, streams, lakes, nallas,
canals, water courses, trees or any
other property in the gram or
nagar, as the case may be vesting
in the Government.
(2) Subject to any conditions and
restrictions imposed by the State
Government under sub-section (1)
and with the previous sanction of
the Collector, a panchayat may
discontinue or stop up any such
public road or street vested in it
by the State Government, but which
is no longer required as public
road or street and may lease or
sell any such land therefor used
for the purposes of such public
road or street.
Provided that one months
before it is decided to stop up or
discontinue such public road or
street, the Sarpanch or Chairman
as the case may be, shall, by
notice signed by him and affixed
in the part of the public road or
street which is proposed to
discontinue or stop up and
published in such other manner as
is prescribed, inform the residents
of the gram or nagar as the case
may be, of the said proposal and
consider any objections in writing
made thereto; the notice shall
indicate the alternative route, if
any, which it is proposed to
provide or which may already be in
existence.
(3) Whenever any public road or
street or any part thereof has been
so discontinued or stopped up,
reasonable compensation shall be
paid to every person who was
entitled to use such road or street
or part thereof, otherwise then as
a mere member of the public, as a
means of access to or from his
property and has suffered damage
from such discontinuance or
stopping up, and the provisions in
the Bombay Highways Act, 1955.
(Bom. LV of 1955) in relation to
the assessment, apportionment, and
payment of compensation shall,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
mutatis mutandis apply thereto as
they apply in relation to the
closure of a highway under section
52 of that Act.
(4) Where any open site or waste,
vacant or grazing land vesting in
Government has been vested by
Government in a panchayat whether
before or after the commencement of
this Act, then it shall be lawful
for the State Government to resume
at any time such site or land, if
it is required by it for any public
purpose.
Provided that in case of any
improvement of such site or land
made by the panchayat or any other
person, the panchayat or person, as
the case may be, shall be entitled
to compensation equal to the value
of such improvement and such value
shall be determined in accordance
with the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894."
The land belonging to the Government was vested in the
Gram Panchayat for one of the purposes enumerated in Section
96, which envisages resumption of land for any public
purpose. Where the land was no longer needed for a public
road or a street, the Sarpanch or the Chairman as the case
may be was enjoined under proviso sub-section (2) to cause a
notice signed by him affixed in any part of the public road
or a street which was proposed to be discontinued or stopped
and to give and notice to the villagers in the prescribed
manner or indicating an alternative route, if available or
if it has become disuse. After considering the objections,
if any, the Gram Panchayat is required to pass a resolution
in writing for the discontinuation or disuse of the public
road or a street.
Relying thereon, it is contended for the State that
notice under sub-section (4) is also implicit when an open
site or waste, vacant or grazing land vests in the
Government but in the management of the panchayat is sought
to be resumed; notice to the villagers or the affected
persons is necessary before resumption by the Collector.
Since such notice was not given the resumption of land by
the Collector is bad in law. We find no force in the
contention.
It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel the State
that by operation of Article 46 read with Article 39(b) of
the Constitution the material resource of the State should
be so distributed as to subserve the common good. Article 46
enjoins that the State shall promote with special care the
economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, in
particular, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and
shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation. Consequently, Preamble of the Constitution
assures socio economic justice to every citizen to provide
dignity of person.
In Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [3]
1996 (4) SC 379] it was held that agricultural land is the
foundation of a sense of security and freedom from fear.
Assured possession is lasting road for development,
intellectual, cultural and moral and also for peace and
harmony. Agriculture is the only source of livelihood for
the tribes and rural poor to provide them social justice and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
status.
In Cement (Bharat Ltd. & Anr. v Union of India & Ors.
etc. [JT 1996 (4) SC 555] a bench of three Judges to which
we were members had held that "Social justice is the
comprehensive form to remove social imbalances by law
harmonising the rival claims or the interests of different
groups and/or sections in the social structure or
individuals by means or which alone it would be possible to
build up a welfare State. The ideal of economic Justice into
make equality of status meaningful and the life worth living
at its best removing inequality of opportunity and of status
social, economic and political. Right to cultivation of
agricultural land was held to be a socio-economic justice to
an agriculturist as fundamental right.
A bench of three Judges of this Court in Consumer
Education & Research Centre & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors
[(1995) 3 SCC 42] held social justice is the each of the
Constitution to ensure life to everyone to be meaningful and
livable with human dignity.
Jurisprudence is the eye of law giving an insight into
the environment of which it is the expression. It relates
the law to the spirit of the time and makes it richer. Law
is the ultimate aim of every civilised society as a key
system in a given era, to meet the needs and demands of its
time. Justice according to laws comprehends social urge and
commitment. Justice, liberty equality and fraternity are
supreme constitutional values to establish the egalitarian
social economic and political democracy. Social justice,
equality and dignity of person are cornerstones, of social
democracy. Social justice consists of diverse principles
essential for the orderly growth and development of
personality of every citizen, Justice is the generic term
and social justice is its facet, a dynamic device to
mitigate the suffering of the disadvantaged and to eliminate
handicaps so as to elevate them to the level of equality to
level life with dignity of person. Social justice is not a
simple or single idea of a society but is an essential part
of complex social change to relieve the poor etc. from
handicaps, penury, to ward them off from distress and to
make their lives livable for greater good of the society at
large. Social justice therefore, gives substantial degree of
social, economic and political equality, which is the
constitutional right of every citizen In para 19, it was
further elaborated that social justice is one of the
disciplines of justice which relates to the society. What is
due cannot be ascertained by an absolute standard which
keeps changing depending upon the time, place and
circumstances. The constitutional concern of social justice,
as an elastic continuous process, is to transform and
accord justice to all sections of the society by providing
facilities and opportunities to remove handicaps and
disabilities with which the poor etc. are languishing. It
aims to secure dignity of their person. It is the duty of
the State to accord justice to all members of the society
in all facets of human activity. The concept of social
justice embeds equality to flavor and enlivens practical
content of life. Social justice and equality are
complementary to each other so that both should maintain
their vitality. Rule of law, therefore, is a potent
instrument of social justice to bring about equality in
result. Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
envision, that all human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights and each should act towards one another
in a spirit of brotherhood. In that case the question was;
whether right to social security is a fundamental right of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
workman? To make the life of the workman worth living with
health, right to health was held to be a fundamental right
and it is the duty of the State and the employer to provide
facilities and opportunities for ensuring sustained good
health and leisure to the workman as a facet of right to
life under Article 21.
Social democracy means a way of life which recognises
liberty, equality and, fraternity as principles of life.
They are the trinity. One cannot diverse one from the other.
Without equality, liberty would produce supremacy of the few
over the many. Equality without liberty would denude the
individual of his initiative to improve excellence. Without
fraternity, liberty and equality would not nurture as their
natural habitat. Social and economic justice is a
constitutional right enshrined for the protection of the
society. The right to socio-economic justice in the trinity,
the preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directives is to make
the quality of life of the Article 14, therefore, requires
affirmative action. by the State to those unequals by
providing facilities and opportunities.
Gandhiji the Father of the. Nation, on the eye of
independence had stated that "independence did not mean mere
freedom from British Rule by breaking the breaking the bonds
of the slavery but it meant more than that. It meant justice
to all citizens of India, irrespective of religion, caste,
creed or language, each getting his legitimate due".
It was held in Dalmia’s case (supra) that social and
economic justice to the agriculturists is the fundamental
right. It was further held that social justice forms the
basis of stability in society. Economic justice means the
abolition of those economic conditions which ultimately
result in the inequality of economic values among men. It
means to establish a democratic way of life built upon
socio-economic structure of the society to make the rule of
law dynamic.
In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde
& Anr [jT 1995 (3) SC 563] it was held that welfare is
actually a form of liberty inasmuch as it liberates men from
social conditions which narrow their choices and brighten
their self-development. In paragraph 17, it was held that
"providing adequate means of livelihood for all the citizens
and distribution of the material resources of the community
for common welfare, enable the poor, the Dalits and tribes,
to fulfil the basic needs to bring about a fundamental
change in the structure of the Indian structure. Therefore,
with a view to make political democracy stable, the State
should see the socio-economic democracy takes strong roots
and should become a way of life. The State, therefore, is
enjoined to provide adequate means of livelihood to the
poor, weaker sections of the society the Dalits and tribes
and to distribute material resources of the community to
them for common welfare etc. the socio-economic justice was
held to be fundamental right of the poor. Economic
empowerment was, therefore held to be basic human right and
the fundamental right as a part of right to live with
equality of status and of dignity .
Economic empowerment of the poor, in particular the
Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes as is enjoined under
Article 46, is a constitutional of objective as basic human
and fundamental right to enable the labourer, Scheduled
Castes and Tribes to raise their economic empowerment. When
the appellant Society had requested for assignment of the
waste land vested in the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat
undoubtedly passed a unanimous resolution requesting the
Collector to resume the land for assignment to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
appellant-society. Since, the Gram Panchayat as a
representative body passed the resolution, it would be
obvious that the elected members represent the interest of
the Gram Panchayat for effecting the constitutional goal.
When the Gram Panchayat in turn passed the resolution for
the said, purpose, there was no obligation to issue notice
to the villagers. That apart, the scheme of Section 36 is
clear. The legislature is of the fact that when public. road
or street is sought to be discontinued or closed, public is
likely to be effected, Sarpanch or Chairman acting on behalf
of Gram Panchayat etc. is enjoined by the proviso to sub-
section (2) of Section 96 to issue notice to them. It
specifically enjoins the Sarpanch or the Chairman, as the
case may be, to cause a notice to be issued in the
prescribed manner, before passing a resolution so that the
affected users would have an opportunity to put in their
objections for consideration by the Gram Panchayat. but
when the waste land or open site or vacant land or grazing
land vested in the state was sought to be resumed from the
Gram Panchayat by the Collector for another laudable public
purpose, then the silence of issuance of notice is eloquent.
Requirement of hearing the villagers is not insisted. The
legislature did not intend issuance of notice to villagers.
It is contended for the State that in a case where the Gram
Panchayat sought to pass a resolution requesting the
Collector to resume the land in the possession and enjoyment
of a person and when the resumption affects such a person,
the issuance or prior notice to such affected person should
be implicit, We need not go into that question since that
question does not arise in this case. Under these
circumstances, the view of the Government learned single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court for issuance
of a notice to the villagers is clearly not warranted by the
scheme of Section 96(4) of the Act.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the
High Court and the Government stand set aside and that of
the District Collector stands restored. No costs.